"New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

The linguistic evidence suggests that the contact situation differed according to region – this is a view that has also been put forward by archaeologists and geneticists on other grounds. Rather than Britons being wiped out or driven out of present-day England by Anglo-Saxons, the research indicates that large numbers of Britons simply learned English and blended in. Owing to their sheer numbers, such Britons had a lasting influence on the historical development of English."

New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. It is likely that such a disadvantage would lead to differential reproductive success.

I think it might have been a good debate at one time, but the discovery of L21, it seems to me, has discredited both the wipe-out and "apartheid" theories. I suppose one could still argue that an apartheid-like system served to reduce the British population in what is now England, but it couldn't have been too effective; there's too much L21 still around. Besides that, there is some evidence that at least some influential Britons might have retained their status in Anglo-Saxon society (cf. Cerdic of Wessex).

I think it might have been a good debate at one time, but the discovery of L21, it seems to me, has discredited both the wipe-out and "apartheid" theories. I suppose one could still argue that an apartheid-like system served to reduce the British population in what is now England, but it couldn't have been too effective; there's too much L21 still around. Besides that, there is some evidence that at least some influential Britons might have retained their status in Anglo-Saxon society (cf. Cerdic of Wessex).

My opinion is there is no wipe-out to zero of the prior inhabitants of England by the Anglo-Saxons. There was an impact, no doubt, though. The question now is just what the percentage is?

I don't think L21 was absent from Jutland Peninsula and the Low Countries. This makes the evaluation even more convoluted. Some of the Anglo-Saxon incomers post the Roman era probably were L21. Maybe not many, but some.

The other side is that probably some Brythonic speaking folks in England had some U106, P312*, Z196, J, E and I in them. What varieties and to what extent I don't know. As you know, I suspect that U106 subclade U198 was present in England a long time and probably some other U106* with him.

If I was forced into a number, I'd say about half to a third of the Y chromosome population of post Anglo-Saxon/Viking era frequency of England are from old Briton lineages.

Quote from: Mikewww from Dec 2008

Just to make sure, I understand it. 1 minus the above numbers would be the Britons then, right? So this is the % of Brittonic Y DNA by English city if Capelli is right.Morpeth 42.9%Penrith 45.6%York 29.4%Southwell 47.1%Uttoxter 50.4%Norfolk 27.5%Chippenham 29.2%Faversham 50.5%Midhurst 75.6%Dorchester 64.0%Cornwall 42.3%

I think Capelli, Weale, Thomas didn't have the advantage of understanding the subclades and deep ancestral varieties that we now do. I also think it was a mistake to assume that the Norman alliance of immigrants were similar to the Anglo-Saxons as many could have been Briton re-treads, Gauls of some kind, Flemings, or Bretons.

There was no complete wipe-out but was the glass half-empty or half-full or almost so, is really the question.

Even folks like Weale left the question wide open.

Quote from: Weale et al

we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales.

In my opinion, Weale's broad range is fine, but marking the upper end at 100% is absurd and just exposing their bias.

"New linguistic research at Leiden University reveals that Celtic had a significant influence on the early development of the English language. Anglo-Saxons from northern Germany set sail for Britain around 450 AD. According to traditional accounts, they carried out a process of ethnic cleansing. Before long they had all but wiped out or driven out the resident Romano-British population, whose Celtic language had no influence on the early development of English.

Recent research dismisses this traditional view as too simplistic. Archaeologists have found no evidence in the form of war graves or settlement dislocation to back up such a clean-sweep scenario. . .

The linguistic evidence suggests that the contact situation differed according to region – this is a view that has also been put forward by archaeologists and geneticists on other grounds. Rather than Britons being wiped out or driven out of present-day England by Anglo-Saxons, the research indicates that large numbers of Britons simply learned English and blended in. Owing to their sheer numbers, such Britons had a lasting influence on the historical development of English."

Very cool!

I know at various times some British kings were allied with the Anglo-Saxons too. One example is a Welsh king allied with a Mercian king to fend off the Northumbrians, although I cannot recall the names of each.

All I can picture is some British tribes throwing in their lots with the Anglo-Saxons just to spite their neighbors! lol

My opinion is there is no wipe-out to zero of the prior inhabitants of England by the Anglo-Saxons. There was an impact, no doubt, though. The question now is just what the percentage is?

It's not possible to comment on Laker's work without seeing it. The idea of detecting sub stratal influences in dialects has been around for some time, most noticably in the 'Celtic Englishes Project', ie studying the way irish, welsh and gaelic speaking scots now speak english. The idea is that mothers spoke the new language, imperfectly, to their young children, who then picked up the imperfections, such as referring to an inanimate object as 'him' rather than 'it' and odd sentance structures such as 'I do be going to the shops', rather than 'I am going ...' Those that study it, claim that often, these peculiar ways of saying things are direct, word for word translations from celtic languages.

The article in question isn't a breakthrough, it is probably just more examples of the above, a strengthening of the hypothesis. Moreover, not even Bede claimed a wipeout or expulsion in the way that some historians claim he did. His text is clear:

"... for though in part they are their own masters yet elsewhere they are also brought under subjection to the English." (Book 5, chapter XIII; OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ENGLISH NATION, OR OF ALL BRITAIN. [A.D. 725-731.])

Bede tells us in Book 1, Chaper XXXIV that Aethelfrith 'conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune.' So, even in the territories conquered by Aethelfrith (Northumbria), Britons remained. It was only a question of who they paid their tribute to. Everyone had to do it, people just wanted to avoid having to pay it to both a British King and a Germanic King at the same time.

However, I have seen linguists claim in the past that the sheep scoring numerals used in various Yorkshire Dales are evidence of a survival of Britons, but it transpired that they were welsh lead miners who moved here in the middle ages and who turned their hand to sheep farming when the lead seams ran out.

Klemola gives an example of the use of the third person singluar to describe an inanimate object:

""I know what we'll do.# We'll get a brick,and chuck him up in the air,and if he do come down,we got to # go to work,and if he stop up there,”he said,"we got to have a day off.”"

It is an example of a south west dialect. However, whether this dates back to the Dark Ages or not is an entirely different matter, as Klemola recognises:

"The paper will also address the question of whether these characteristics of the personal pronouns in south-western dialects could be due to a Celtic substratum.". We're not sure when this way of speaking developed.

we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales.

In my opinion, Weale's broad range is fine, but marking the upper end at 100% is absurd and just exposing their bias.

The broad range was due to the lack of clarity on some haplotypes at that time. They didn't know whether to assign some to Britons or to Germanics. Depending on how they were assigned, you got very different results.

I found Laker's key points for his dissertation. It follows the same methodology as previous papers on this subject, namely that of studying middle english texts.

"1. The results of this dissertation support the general observation that more suspected Brittonic influences on English appear in Middle English sources than in Old English sources."

The argument is that because the substrata is observed in Middle English, it may have been present in old English. It doesn't exist in Old English texts because that was an elite language and much more conservative than the spoken language.

Whilst this is highly likely, supporters such as Hildegard Tristram, "This paper argues that the texts surviving from the Old English period do not reflect the spoken language of the bulk of the population under Anglo-Saxon elite domination." whilst conceding that we don't really know what spoken old english sounded like. Coates adopts a cautious approach, "No-one, to my knowledge, has demonstrated conclusively that Brittonic had an impact on English grammar." If we don't know what spoken old english sounded like, we don't know what spoken Brittonic sounded like either, again it is only a back projection from later welsh languages.

It is an open question as to how much U106 and I1 there were in what is now England before the Anglo-Saxons starting showing up. I don't know the answer, but I suspect it was much less than it is now, and it was much more geographically restricted.

I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now. If the situation was similar at the time of the A-S migrations, then, obviously, only a small fraction of them were L21+.

It's fair, I think, to look at the modern distribution of U106 and I1 and to see them in England as representing the old Anglo-Saxons, and, to some unknown extent, Danish Vikings. Just how much is Anglo-Saxon and how much is Danish Viking, I do not know.

Was a substantial portion of pre-Anglo-Saxon British Celts U106 and/or I1? Personally, I doubt it, but who knows? Perhaps in the southeast of what is now England U106 and I1 were already present in substantial numbers before the Anglo-Saxons got there. That could be, but I really don't think U106 and I1 were as widespread or as populous in the rest of England before the Anglo-Saxons as they became after them.

It seems to me fairly obvious that the British Celts were probably predominantly L21.

Some other interesting questions concern U152. How much of the U152 in what is now England got there in the bodies of Italian Roman soldiers? How much of it got there with the Belgae? How much with the Anglo-Saxons?

Mike said 'f I was forced into a number, I'd say about half to a third of the Y chromosome population of post Anglo-Saxon/Viking era frequency of England are from old Briton lineages.'

I think that is brave to have a stab at a ballpark figure. I would tend to think in the same general terms. i mentally tend to figure that there was some L21 with the A-Saxons and some U106 is pre-historic in Britain too but I tend to think they might cancel each other out. I also think U152 was a pre-Anglo-Saxon marker in general and was a significant clade of southern and eastern Britain. So, I would as many do tend to still look to U106 and the northern European I clades (although again maybe not all) to be an indicator of A-S strength. I suppose R1a too has been shown to be in Germany in the Corded Ware culture so you could add that too. I would tend to think of the pre-Celtic population survival as roughly L21+U152+some of the western I clades + other smaller haplogroups. I tend to see the Celtic element as varying from about 33-75% in England on a roughly east to west trend. I also imagine the female input is a lot more Celtic. Overall I would tend to think of the English genetics as rather more Celtic than Germanic.

...I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now.

I agree that I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 to England, but it could be more than our predispositions would have thought.

I find it ironic that by the same reasoning, U198, as well as L21 must have been very light in the Anglo-Saxon invasion era. Essentially, as the logic flows, then U198 and probably then at least some U106* were both in England prior to the Anglo-Saxon era.

...I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now.

I agree that I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 to England, but it could be more than our predispositions would have thought.

I find it ironic that by the same reasoning, U198, as well as L21 must have been very light in the Anglo-Saxon invasion era. Essentially, as the logic flows, then U198 and probably then at least some U106* were both in England prior to the Anglo-Saxon era.

I wouldn't call it quite the same logic or reasoning, because U198 is just scarcer all the way around than L21. There's a lot of L21 in the places where there is a lot of L21.

There doesn't seem to be a big supply of U198 anywhere. Britain is not exactly loaded with U198; but Britain is loaded with L21 in a big way, and mainly in the "Celtic Fringe".

So the actual logic is that L21 appears to be mainly Celtic and isn't big in Germanic places. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly British (i.e., from Britons) in England.

U198 is hard to identify, and it isn't big anywhere (which is one of the reasons it's hard to nail down). I don't think it can be reasonably used to argue there was a lot of U106 in Britain before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

U106 is big in Germanic areas and in the places in Britain where Germans (i.e., mainly Anglo-Saxons) settled. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly Germanic in England and elsewhere in the British Isles.

By the way, isn't U198 especially scarce in the traditionally Celtic areas of Britain? If it tends to "hang" with other U106 and with I1, then it could reasonably be construed as Germanic, too.

...I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 with them, but that's not something I can prove. It's just that there doesn't seem to be all that much L21 in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons now.

I agree that I don't think the Anglo-Saxons brought much L21 to England, but it could be more than our predispositions would have thought.

I find it ironic that by the same reasoning, U198, as well as L21 must have been very light in the Anglo-Saxon invasion era. Essentially, as the logic flows, then U198 and probably then at least some U106* were both in England prior to the Anglo-Saxon era.

I wouldn't call it quite the same logic or reasoning, because U198 is just scarcer all the way around than L21. There's a lot of L21 in the places where there is a lot of L21.

I guess its a matter of degrees. We haven't defined specific percentages that are scarce or light.

Quote from: rms2

There doesn't seem to be a big supply of U198 anywhere. Britain is not exactly loaded with U198; but Britain is loaded with L21 in a big way, and mainly in the "Celtic Fringe".

So the actual logic is that L21 appears to be mainly Celtic and isn't big in Germanic places. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly British (i.e., from Britons) in England.

U198 is hard to identify, and it isn't big anywhere (which is one of the reasons it's hard to nail down). I don't think it can be reasonably used to argue there was a lot of U106 in Britain before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

I don't think U198 is any harder to nail down than anything else. It is England-centric with everything else being of quite low frequency or non-existent. That doesn't prove an origin in England just the same way that L21's frequency in the Isles doesn't prove its origin is there.

Quote from: rms2

U106 is big in Germanic areas and in the places in Britain where Germans (i.e., mainly Anglo-Saxons) settled. It isn't much of a leap to see it as mainly Germanic in England and elsewhere in the British Isles.

I'm not sure where we are going with this, but I'm fine with labeling that most L21 lineages had a Celtic ancestry at one time or another or most U106 had a Germanic ancestry at one time or another.

However, that doesn't mean that either is a sure-fire diagnostic marker akin to how M153 is found with the Basques. There are too many L21 folks in places that have been speaking Germanic a long time to say L21 is pure. I'd say the same thing about U106 and U152.

Unless we want to talk about real number (percentages) ranges talking about mostly this or mostly that is a glass half-full/half-empty discussion - it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

Quote from: rms2

By the way, isn't U198 especially scarce in the traditionally Celtic areas of Britain? If it tends to "hang" with other U106 and with I1, then it could reasonably be construed as Germanic, too.

This is the point I do want to challenge. It's just a point of advocacy I want to take up versus conventional wisdom. Was it Sykes who thought there was a North Sea connection from the Isles to the Low Countries and Jutland Peninsula a long time before the Anglo-Saxons?

I'm very interested in this - what is the strongest evidence we (or I should say the academics) have to claim the Welsh as a proxy for the old Britons? I'm from Missouri (figure of speech) so that's never been demonstrated to me conclusively.

U198 is way older than Germanic languages as we think of them. Same for U106, U152 and L21. Probably older than Celtic languages as we think of them.

The Celtics were never a unified nation or uniform people. Why do the Celtics in the low-lands and plains in the south and east of England have to have the same make up of those in the mountains to the west and to the north? How do we know Great Britain was ever totally Celtic?

I don't think of Great Britain as an isolated island, even prior to the Roman Empire. The waterways may have just been good highways for the people who knew how to use them.

I'm very interested in this - what is the strongest evidence we (or I should say the academics) have to claim the Welsh as a proxy for the old Britons?

There is no proof, it was a hypothesis used by Jim Wilson back in 2001 in 'Genetic evidence for different male and female roles during cultural transitions in the British Isles'. Both Weale and Capelli subsequently used the hypothesis although Weale warned that, "the study of Wilson et al. did not directly address the effects of cultural transitions in other areas of Britain."

Wilson' hypothesis was based on an assumption that the 'celtic' population of Britain was derived from the palaeolithic population and that "that subsequent cultural transitions in North Wales were not associated with substantial incoming male gene flow." The position of Hg E in Abergele in North Wales as found by Weale may show this assumption to be wrong.

Since much of europe is represented by clines of one sort or another, it's a long shot to assume homogenity throughout pre roman Britain.

Out of curiousity, I ran a sample of U198 through Ken's Generations5 spreadsheet. I was hoping that if U198 is the best R1b candidate for an Anglo-Saxon signature, a founder effect might show up.

I used 41 members from the U198 project with only England listed as their most distant known ancestry.

The intraclade for them is G=86+/-13 or 2580+/-390 ybp at 30 yrs./G.

I compared them with 11 continentals, 7 of which were German and Dutch. Their intraclade was actually younger at G=77+/-11 or 2310+/-330 ybp.

Using the interclade method with both samples I get G=81+/-29 or 2430+/-870 ybp. Interestingly enough all of these samples and their estimates are right in line for the beginnings of the Germanic movements towards the west before Rome temporarily halted the advance.

At the low end of the confidence interval of 2430-870, puts it at 1560 ybp or 440 AD, which is about the same time as the early Anglo-Saxon period in England. It is puzzling that the variance for the English only sample is not low enough to demonstrate a founder effect in post-Roman Britain. Perhaps the linguists are right in that it was only a smaller elite migration. This would explain why L21 who were likely Romano-British, Irish, and Pictish, was able to continue their proliferation.

Out of curiousity, I ran a sample of U198 through Ken's Generations5 spreadsheet. I was hoping that if U198 is the best R1b candidate for an Anglo-Saxon signature, a founder effect might show up.

I used 41 members from the U198 project with only England listed as their most distant known ancestry.

The intraclade for them is G=86+/-13 or 2580+/-390 ybp at 30 yrs./G.

I compared them with 11 continentals, 7 of which were German and Dutch. Their intraclade was actually younger at G=77+/-11 or 2310+/-330 ybp.

Using the interclade method with both samples I get G=81+/-29 or 2430+/-870 ybp. Interestingly enough all of these samples and their estimates are right in line for the beginnings of the Germanic movements towards the west before Rome temporarily halted the advance....

I should qualify any age related comments I have on U198 as being very risky. U198 is the one that bounces around the most when I do intraclade variance based calculations. I wouldn't have ever brought it up (another thread here) except Tim Janzen had also found the TMRCA for U198 to be older, like I was finding (on some runs.) He puts U198 is as old as U106, or about 4000 ybp.

This would be a good clade for Busby to use as an example of the problems with STR variance. If you use only the slower markers (as Tim probably did) you get higher relative variance. The faster markers seem relatively slow for U198 uniquely. Perhaps it is the saturation effect. Ken Nordtvedt did say on Rootsweb we need to "downweight" the faster markers as we look further back in time.

I should qualify any age related comments I have on U198 as being very risky. U198 is the one that bounces around the most when I do intraclade variance based calculations. I wouldn't have ever brought it up (another thread here) except Tim Janzen had also found the TMRCA for U198 to be older, like I was finding (on some runs.) He puts U198 is as old as U106, or about 4000 ybp.

This would be a good clade for Busby to use as an example of the problems with STR variance. If you use only the slower markers (as Tim probably did) you get higher relative variance. The faster markers seem relatively slow for U198 uniquely. Perhaps it is the saturation effect. Ken Nordtvedt did say on Rootsweb we need to "downweight" the faster markers as we look further back in time.

The problem I see is that our snp ages are usually based on str measurements, unless we can zero in with the Karafet counting method down to the L11+ level.

For example, str variance gives us ages around 4000 ybp for most of L11+. On the 10 (for 67 marker panel)fast mutators xCDY and 464, they are most likely to mutate at least twice in 4000 yrs. 439 and 481 maybe just once. This is according to the Ratestuff data on the Yahoo L21 project all haplotypes file. I think we have to be cautious with downweighting because the snp age itself is really only projected from str's. Downweighting the fast str's may give a increase in age of about 20-25% if you slow down their mutation rate by half to account for the likely 2 mutations in the last 4-5000 years. I doubt a younger subclade like L159 would require a correction since it's only around 1500-2000 yrs. old.

I think one thing is clear. If you are talking about gene flow from coasts opposite Britain , L21 (and U152) most likely overwhelmingly represents gene flow from west of the Rhine while U106 clearly is more east of the Rhine. We may not have enough subclade definition to unravel the layers and timings but I think the geography is reasonably clear. Broadly speaking the British Isles L11 clade pattern does seem to echo that of the bit of the continent closest to them.

As for L21 there is no doubt that L21 in Busby does rise with lingering Celtic speaking. It rises substantially in Devon and the Pennines and drops off in the east. It is however high in the north-east of Scotland compared to south-east England which does suggest that high L21 might once have extended to the east coast and Anglo-Saxons and Danes may have diluted it in eastern England. I dont see those Germanic peoples as any more likely origins of U152 as L21 so I would tend to see U152 as an east/Belgic pre-Roman clade, at least mainly. I would say the same in relation to the continent too.

So, with lots of caveats I would be lying if I said I didnt still think that the proportion of U102 + R1a vs L21+U152 didnt still feel like a rough indicator of Celtic vs German populations in R terms.

Even if you chalked all the U198 in England up to SE British Celts, you still wouldn't have that much of a factor. Until we get complete genome testing or lots of good ancient y-dna, the general or big picture is the best we can do, I think.

And that, pretty obviously, it seems to me, says that L21 is biggest in the old Celtic regions and U106 is biggest in the old Germanic regions. That is why it is not unreasonable to see L21 in England as a British marker and U106 in England as a Germanic marker. U198 is a smallish U106 clade, but it has its best showing in England not in the traditionally Celtic west but in those places where the Anglo-Saxons settled.

Sure, it's possible to argue the southeast of England was always genetically similar to the area right across the Channel, and maybe that is true. But how far did that similarity extend?

I don't know the answer, but I tend to see the Anglo-Saxon migration into what is now England, over time, as a very large folk movement. I don't see it as the movement of merely an army and a set of elites like the Norman Conquest. In my view, there was a flood of Anglo-Saxons, including whole families, and that, in part, accounts for their success and the subsequent success of the English language.

So, I could be wrong, but I don't think the Celtic-speaking U106 element was ever all that large. Some, yes, maybe, but the real infusion of U106 arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. That's just my opinion.

Due to the fact that right now the best we can do is generalize, we might miss an individual L21+ Englishman whose y-dna ancestor never was a Celt at all but actually came over as one of those relatively rare L21+ Anglo-Saxons. By the same token, we might misclassify the U106+ descendant of a Briton as an Anglo-Saxon.

But I don't think that can be helped, given the state of knowledge right now. We make few mistakes pegging an L21+ Englishman as a Briton and a U106+ Englishman as an Anglo-Saxon (or other Germanic), in my opinion. We can always include the usual sorts of caveats to cover the possibility of error.

Look, L21 just literally dominates in the old Celtic regions of the British Isles. It practically screams, "Celtic!" Even on the Continent, with the exception of Scandinavia, where it may have arrived with British immigrants of one sort or another, it is at its most frequent in areas where there were lots of Celts and far fewer Germans.

....Due to the fact that right now the best we can do is generalize, we might miss an individual L21+ Englishman whose y-dna ancestor never was a Celt at all but actually came over as one of those relatively rare L21+ Anglo-Saxons. By the same token, we might misclassify the U106+ descendant of a Briton as an Anglo-Saxon.

But I don't think that can be helped, given the state of knowledge right now. We make few mistakes pegging an L21+ Englishman as a Briton and a U106+ Englishman as an Anglo-Saxon (or other Germanic), in my opinion. We can always include the usual sorts of caveats to cover the possibility of error...

Generalizing is fine, but it is easy to assume the generalizations are always correct. This does cause discouragement. What does the L21 "Briton" think who's name, residency, culture and genealogy are Germanic as far back as he can find? Maybe he is the lineage of an Irish mercenary, but we really don't know.

I come down on the side of assuming that the ethnicities we think of as Celtic, German, Roman or whatever were probably a mix of haplogroups. The corrallary to that is if you really want to understand a lineage in question you need to get down to the cluster level, which may mean recruiting and researching the cluster. Fortunately new SNP discoveries will make this all more certain and clear.

Many of these haplogroups we speak of are two thousand or more years older than the ethnicities we are classifying them by. Unfortunately these ethnicities are really only faintly understood and often embellished as our historical data is limited to a a few foreign authors (Greeks and Romans) or religious and politically motivated folks. The ethnicities weren't at all monolithic, homogenous, or nationalistic anyway. They are more like bands and tribes that ware constantly changing, assigned sweeping labels by foreigners. I don't think we still know what the Belgae were for sure? or the difference between a Caledonian and a Pict, if there is such a difference? I realize I'm being a bit pickyunish.

I'm not saying there were a large set of tribes that spoke Celtic languages, or Germanic languages. Sure, but what we know of them was long after many haplogroups had expanded.

Going back to a pertinent question. We'll never have proof, but do we even have good evidence that the inhabitants of Britain were alike all over Great Britain when the Romans first appeared? I'm fine if we do. I hope we do, but I've always been bothered by some of the giant assumptions.

It does seem reasonable that inhabitants along both sides of the Irish Sea may have more in common than the folks to their east and south across some rugged highlands in a plain that faces the North Sea and Low Countries. I think it's rather hard to believe that such differences weren't there prior to the times of the Romans. This may just mean that long, long ago there may have been a lot more L21 people in the Low Countries but many were diluted, obliterated or moved west across the channel. Perhaps more than half the L21 in England is closer related to the L21 on the continent than to Irish, Welsh and Scottish L21?

I am fairly convinced that 90% of L21 went through a phase of Celtic culture wherever it was. As for U106, it most westerly concentration seem to be associated with the Dutch languages where it crosses the Rhine into the coast of Belgium and NE France. I understand it sharply drops off at the Germanic-Romance divide. So, I would think U106 prior to that extension of Flemish speakers into that area was esseintially an east of the Rhine clade (in terms of the Lower Rhine). So, that tells me that U106 in pre-Roman times was probably east of the Rhine in terms of the coasts facing Britain.

This is important because that means only contact with the area between the Rhine and the Baltic (most likely the area between northern Holland and Denmark) would have brought U106 to Britain in prehistoric times.Clearly it is most likely on geographical grounds along that this would have been mainly east and south-east Britain. So, the challenge is to identify phases of contact between Britain and the area east of the Rhine in prehistoric times because that is the only way U106 can have got to Britain (if it did) in prehistoric times. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about a lot of cultures so its not easy.

... As for U106, it most westerly concentration seem to be associated with the Dutch languages where it crosses the Rhine into the coast of Belgium and NE France. I understand it sharply drops off at the Germanic-Romance divide. So, I would think U106 prior to that extension of Flemish speakers into that area was esseintially an east of the Rhine clade (in terms of the Lower Rhine). So, that tells me that U106 in pre-Roman times was probably east of the Rhine in terms of the coasts facing Britain.

This is important because that means only contact with the area between the Rhine and the Baltic (most likely the area between northern Holland and Denmark) would have brought U106 to Britain in prehistoric times.Clearly it is most likely on geographical grounds along that this would have been mainly east and south-east Britain.....

What were the predominat haplogroups of Gallia Belgica? It was west of the Rhine so I assume you think it would have very little U106. Very well could be L21, P312* with some other things mixed in.

I may be misreading this, but my understanding is that the Belgae's greatest impact was in England, itself. Is that fair? Weren't the Belgae supposed to have originated in Germany and moved to the west side of the lower Rhine at some point? The last I heard, most people think the Belgae where Celtic speaking. Is that true?

I asked this early. It's not really Sykes who thought there was some pre-Roman North Sea connections to England. It was Stephen Oppenheimer.

I believe that the evidence for what the Belgae spoke is overwhelmingly Celtic in terms of personal names, tribal name, placenames in Classical sources etc. The evidence for Germanic seems to just be down to peoples interpretations of east of the Rhine, Germani etc but there is a lack of evidence for Germanic speaking in general.

I think the roots of the Belgae and even their links with SE England may have roots as far back as beaker times and in the long succeeding Hilversum culture which in the main was west of the original line of the Lower Rhine. They were kind of a peripheral element of the Atlantic Bronze network or perhaps some sort of interface between them and the groups like the Elp culture to the east of the Rhine in northern Holland and NW Germany who had some sort of relation to the Nordic Bronze Age area. Its tempting to see Elp as part of a proto-German group and Hilversum as some sort of proto-Belgic group (some even suggest Nordwestblock speaking). I tend to be more convinced that the basic linguistic pattern as being set in the Bronze Age with the Iron Age getting far too much attention simply because it coincides with classical historians appearing.

Mike-The overwhelming evidence of all types for Belgae in the isles is SE/southern England. The talk of them in Ireland is totally speculative, based on an interpretation of Fir Bolg and Ptolemy's Menapii. Too much is made of the latter because its in fact a common Celtic root and the Isle of Mann, Menai strates etc have similar names. There is virtually no archaeological evidence for the distinctive Belgic material culture in Ireland. I am baffled by how many people believe in Belgae in Ireland and the amount of internet posting about it. If you google Belgae far more stuff about (possibly imaginary) Belgae in Ireland comes up that the real proven Belgae of the Low Countries, SE England etc. The curse of O'Rahilly in the age of the internet!

I suppose based on modern distributions and alleged drop off of U106 along the Germanic-Romance border, I dont think that the Belgae (other than actual German elements intruding into them) would have had a lot of U106. Modern maps of U106 show a major drop off around the German-Romance border. Overall I do not think the Belgic Gauls had much U106 although it would also be incredible if it had none given the block of it east of the Lower Rhine. It may have been brought in pockets into northern Belgica in the end of the Iron Age. However, I do not believe most of the Belgae were Germanic in the sense of Germanic speakers.

Upshot is I dont think the Belgae explain U106 but they might have been a major source of U152. The Hilversum culture of the early to mid Bronze Age was closely linked to SE England but this seems to be overlap mostly with later Belgic areas than the later Germanic areas further to the east. I have heard of some links between Britain and the Nordic Bronze Area but not of the sort where you would normally infer significant population movement. I am not sure about the details of the British-Low Countries link in the beaker period. I have heard the link was more with the west of the Rhine part of the Low Countries but I would need to check it.

Another thing is there is a pretty good case that from north Holland eastwards appears most likely to be in a proto-Germanic sphere, certainly outside the proto-Celtic sphere. If movement into England did happen from east of the Lower Rhine then it should have been some non-Celtic language, some IE on the path towards Germanic. If we go back into the Bronze Age I would still say that it is likely that most of the U106 zone facing England would not be thought to be within the proto-Celtic sphere. Now, Oppenheimers idea that SE England lacks evidence of Celtic has been exploded by actual linguists. In fact if you look at Roman sources the Belgic part of England has one of the major concentrations of certain Celtic names. So, I think that is in itself evidence that links with the area between North Holland and Scandinavia beyond the Celtic zone must have been weak in the Iron and Bronze Age. That is not to claim no contact and exceptions but I think its a fair observation. If Britain's links east of the old Lower Rhine line (which was to the east of where it is now) were weak in those periods then that maybe strengthens the case that not much U106 would have flowed in. It is only in the migration period that the flow into England switched to being mainly east of Rhine. I must look deeper into this though.

....Due to the fact that right now the best we can do is generalize, we might miss an individual L21+ Englishman whose y-dna ancestor never was a Celt at all but actually came over as one of those relatively rare L21+ Anglo-Saxons. By the same token, we might misclassify the U106+ descendant of a Briton as an Anglo-Saxon.

But I don't think that can be helped, given the state of knowledge right now. We make few mistakes pegging an L21+ Englishman as a Briton and a U106+ Englishman as an Anglo-Saxon (or other Germanic), in my opinion. We can always include the usual sorts of caveats to cover the possibility of error...

Generalizing is fine, but it is easy to assume the generalizations are always correct. This does cause discouragement. What does the L21 "Briton" think who's name, residency, culture and genealogy are Germanic as far back as he can find? Maybe he is the lineage of an Irish mercenary, but we really don't know.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was talking about L21 and U106 in Britain, not in Germany and elsewhere on the Continent. I still think most German L21 is Celtic, but I wouldn't call them "Britons".

I come down on the side of assuming that the ethnicities we think of as Celtic, German, Roman or whatever were probably a mix of haplogroups. The corrallary to that is if you really want to understand a lineage in question you need to get down to the cluster level, which may mean recruiting and researching the cluster. Fortunately new SNP discoveries will make this all more certain and clear.

I agree with that, but in the British Isles, for by far and away the most part, L21 is clearly Celtic. I don't really see how anyone could argue otherwise.

There were non-L21 Celts, no doubt, but in the British Isles they were probably few and far between, with the exception perhaps of U152 in the south. I suspect, however, that at least some of that English U152 is Italo-Roman in origin.

Perhaps as far more haplotypes are collected and analyzed, greater cluster resolution will break things down with more specificity. Personally, I still don't think that will alter the basically Celtic nature of L21 in the British Isles much at all.

Many of these haplogroups we speak of are two thousand or more years older than the ethnicities we are classifying them by. Unfortunately these ethnicities are really only faintly understood and often embellished as our historical data is limited to a a few foreign authors (Greeks and Romans) or religious and politically motivated folks. The ethnicities weren't at all monolithic, homogenous, or nationalistic anyway. They are more like bands and tribes that ware constantly changing, assigned sweeping labels by foreigners. I don't think we still know what the Belgae were for sure? or the difference between a Caledonian and a Pict, if there is such a difference? I realize I'm being a bit pickyunish.

No problem. I still think L21 is blatantly, screamingly Celtic, having appeared in that historical, ethno-linguistic guise most recently of all its various ethno-linguistic incarnations.

I don't think we have to worry about the Celticity of the regions where L21 is at its most frequent being the result of an embellishment or of over-enthusiastic nationalism.

I think that is also true of the Teutonism of the places where U106 puts in its heftiest showing.

I don't think the evidence, especially for L21, is all that subtle. Actually, it's about as subtle as a hammer over the head.

I'm not saying there were a large set of tribes that spoke Celtic languages, or Germanic languages. Sure, but what we know of them was long after many haplogroups had expanded.

Going back to a pertinent question. We'll never have proof, but do we even have good evidence that the inhabitants of Britain were alike all over Great Britain when the Romans first appeared? I'm fine if we do. I hope we do, but I've always been bothered by some of the giant assumptions.

It does seem reasonable that inhabitants along both sides of the Irish Sea may have more in common than the folks to their east and south across some rugged highlands in a plain that faces the North Sea and Low Countries. I think it's rather hard to believe that such differences weren't there prior to the times of the Romans. This may just mean that long, long ago there may have been a lot more L21 people in the Low Countries but many were diluted, obliterated or moved west across the channel. Perhaps more than half the L21 in England is closer related to the L21 on the continent than to Irish, Welsh and Scottish L21?

That is certainly something to consider. I have often wondered how much of the L21 in England and Wales actually came from Ireland beginning in about the 5th century. We know there was substantial Irish settlement in Wales and SW England. Of course, Scotland takes its name from the Irish Scots. An Irish impact there almost goes without saying.